1. The petitioner seeks a mandamus to the respondent Land Acquisition Officer cum - Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangareddygudem to refer the land acquisition case with respect to the Award dated 22.05.2006 to the appropriate civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act).

2. The case of the petitioner is that though he made a request in the prescribed form i.e. Form IV on 22.05.2006, followed by the representation dated 04.06.2006 seeking reference of the matter to the civil Court for enhancement of the compensation under Section 18 of the Act, the same has not been considered.

3. The facts are not in dispute. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 13.03.2006 seeking to acquire the land in an extent of Acs.8.89 cents in R.S.No. 236/2B in LND Peta Village, Polavaram Mandal, West Godavari District belonging to the petitioner for the purpose of providing house sites to the tribes, followed by the declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 06.04.2006. Necessary formalities, as required under the 1894 Act, were complied with. Thereafter, the petitioner expressed his consent to receive the compensation at Rs.90,000/- per acre totalling to Rs.8,00,100/- and accordingly, a consent Award was passed on 22.05.2006. On the very same day, the petitioner has protested the Award by filing his objections. On 04.06.2006, he made a representation requesting to pay the compensation at Rs.90,000/- per acre, besides the compensation for the value of trees, bore wells and other permanent structures. In that view of the matter, the petitioner sought reference under Section 18 of the Act for determination of the value of structures and trees. Since there is no response from the respondent, the petitioner approached this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri C.C.S. Sastry submits that the very consent given by the petitioner under Resolution written in Telugu itself discloses that the petitioner had accepted to receive compensation for the lands acquired at Rs.90,000/- per acre, exclusive of the value of bore wells and permanent structures. In the very consent form, the petitioner stated that the value with respect to bore wells and permanent structure may be paid as may be determined by the departmental officials, but contrary to the consent, under the guise of consent Award in Part-IV, payment of compensation for trees and buildings was refused. Inasmuch as the alleged Award was not in conformity with the consent given by the petitioner, his case ought to have been referred to the civil Court for the purpose of determination of the value of bore wells and buildings. In the alternative, the learned counsel submits that since there is no dispute that the consent Award has not included the value of structures and bore wells, a supplementary award may be directed to be passed.

5. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition opposes the Writ Petition and submits that it is well-settled that as against the consent Award, no Application under Section 18 of the Act is maintainable and no direction can be issued directing the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the civil Court. The learned Government Pleader further submits that from Form-IV, it can be seen that the petitioner had agreed to receive compensation for trees, structures and bore wells, valued at Rs.3,00,000/- by the Land Acquisition Officer, hence, there is no need to pay him the value of trees, bore wells and structures separately. The learned Government Pleader also submits that inasmuch as the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is repealed by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013), at this point of time, there is no provision to refer the matter to the civil Court and also making a supplementary Award.

6. Perused the record. From a careful scrutiny of the consent Resolution, which has been recorded in Telugu, it is evident that